facebook_twitter

Gavin Grades The Movies


Anonymous

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
There have been some very good movies that were made over the years about Conspiracy Theories.  What they end up doing is taking the most believed or plausible explanation for the events under question and make a film committed to that.  Oliver Stone's masterpiece JFK is one of the best examples of it, but films like From Hell and All the President's Men are others.  Anonymous is a film like those in that it looks at the theory that William Shakespeare did not actually write anything, but was just a front for the real writer who had to stay in the shadows.  Unfortunately for Anonymous, this Conspiracy Theory is way too complex and doesn't hold water.

I'm not sure who this movie is made for.  You would probably be interested in seeing this if you really loved Shakespeare's work and/or British Royal history; but if you do, then you'll not enjoy all the blatant inaccuracies in order to establish its point.  But if you don't really enjoy Shakespeare and/or know very little about British Royal history, you'll probably really enjoy it; but let's be honest, you're not interested in seeing this in the first place.

Everything about the movie is top quality though.  This is by far director Roland Emmerich's best film.  He's the guy that is the Hollywood go-to for blowing up the world.  His legacy until now has been films like Independence Day, 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow.  Prior to this, his crowning achievement was The Patriot with Mel Gibson but the look and scope of Anonymous dethrones that in the attention to costumes, prop details and using Emmerich's experience with CGI to recreate the landscapes of 16th Century England.

The acting is tops as well.  Usual goofball Rhys Ifans (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1, Notting Hill) is shockingly great in this darkly dramatic role as The Early of Oxford aka the true "William Shakespeare."  But he's joined by A-quality performances from Vanessa Redgrave (Cars 2, Mission: Impossible), David Thewlis (the Harry Potter series, The Big Lebowski) and Rafe Spall (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) who steals every scene he's in as William Shakespeare, who they portray as a showboating, blackmailing, drunken moron.  He's very funny to watch but this portrayal is one of vast inaccuracy, even within the context of the conspiracy.  And there is an example of the downfall of this film.

Any true fan of Shakespeare can sniff out the rewriting of historical events to make a puzzle piece fit where it doesn't and that sticks in your craw too much to fully enjoy the film.  The order of when plays were released is mixed up, Shakespeare's contemporaries are amazed at hearing things for the first time that they actually all did before he did, deaths of famous figures are jumbled about to make the story stick better, etc.  Not to mention the fact that the story itself is so hard to follow and keep all the characters straight that motives for massive plot points get lost at the fast pace of this 130 minute film.

In the end though the film stands as a wonderful send-up to Shakespeare's words...whoever wrote them.  Anonymous is beautifully framed in modern times by explaining to the audience that no matter  who actually wrote them (historians are 95% sure it actually was Shakespeare, by the way) that the words were so perfect and beautiful that they define what it means to be human.  And for that, I respect and liked this film.  The rest is history.
Anonymous  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , 

 

The Ides of March

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
There are few actors out there that I will gladly sit and watch with a smile on my face regardless of how bad the movie is.  George Clooney is one of them.  Sure I'm a little gay for the guy, but how can you not be?  This new movie of his is not only starring him as a politician in the fight for the nomination but it was directed by him too.  The last time he did both it was for Michael Clayton and it got him an Oscar nomination for Directing and a win for Acting.  Sadly, this time around, it won't produce such accolades. Despite the fact that The Ides of March has one of the most impressive casts this year and it does nothing for the film.  It not only has Clooney but Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood (The Wrestler).  With that kind of pedigree, you'd think there'd be thespiatic explosions all over the screen.  There isn't. That's not to say that the acting isn't well done though.  Everyone is natural and subtle but the script prevents them from displaying too much more than the cold Washington Insiders they are...that is except for Gosling.  Once again, Ryan Gosling does a great job at showing us a very layered character.  He's the cool and collected head of the political campaign that's put in two situations that lend itself to his undoing.  One involves a tug-of-war between Hoffman and Giamatti and the other is cleaning up after Clooney.  It's fun and unfortunate to watch Reynold's character become undone, but it's not enough to really get full entertainment out of it. The film moves at a deliberatly slow pace.  It's not heart-pounding or edge-of-your-seat.  It plays out more realistic than most political thrillers do.  I appreciate that.  But when it comes to how I want my movies, realism is appreciated but not throughly loved.  I would have enjoyed a few more twists and turns and a little more passion from the players would have pumped more life into the film.  But it's still very dark, sinister and paints an ugly portrait of American politics...and that I like. The Ides of March  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B-
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , 

 

Drive

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
In the opening sequence of this crime drama, Ryan Gosling is introduced as a getaway driver for two faceless thugs stealing money from some unknown destination.  The scene builds to what will be an inevitable chase scene between them and the cops.  Tension mounts as a creeping Cat & Mouse game plays out with them slowly trying to sneak down the streets of LA without being spotted.  Surely, this car chase scene is gonna be epic and kick this movie off in full throttle.  But no.  It never comes.  In fact, the sequence involves slow driving, methodical evasion moves and an  anticlimactic getaway.  Never once is any of it boring though.  And this sets the tone of Drive. Drive is a gritty crime movie that takes place in LA but we're not sure when due to a misleading soundtrack choice of heart-pounding synth pop and cliche costume choices.  These were deliberate choice by director Nicolas Winding Refn, who directed the brilliant Bronson in 2008, which introduced the world to Tom Hardy (Warrior, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises).  I'm sure he also had a call in the promotion of this film that uses hot pink '80s style font for all the advertising and credits.  Coupled with the heavy female soundtrack and Gosling's adorable manboy face, you'd expect this to be a film about crime that's made for women.  A warning to all lovers of The Notebook, this is not the Ryan you're expecting. Drive is one of the most violent movies I've ever seen.  Sure there are movies like Saving Private Ryan or Nightmare on Elm Street that are officially more violent, but Drive is filled with unexpected brutality.  This is NOT a film for the slight of heart.  Some of the scenes generated audible gasps from the audience and people turned away from the screen.  In some cases, people got up and left the theater.  Yes, some of this violence is gratuitous but never once does it not fit the tone of the film.  It's all done for a reason and in some cases even meant to be playful. The entire cast is brilliant.  It also features Carey Mulligan (An Education), Ron Pearlman (Hellboy), Bryan Cranston (AMC's Breaking Bad) and comedian Albert Brooks (Mother, Finding Nemo) as an Oscar-caliber villain.  He is a perfect baddie and nobody would EVER have guessed that.  It's that kind of risky choices that makes Drive and Refn's vision that deserves top notice from people. All that being said, this is not a movie for mass audiences.  It has a pace that is slow and deliberate.  The film takes itself more seriously than it deserves but that can be overlooked.  Gosling's character, who is only listed in the credits as "Driver," is mysterious and a man of few words.  He says very little and Refn allows moments of the film to go on in complete silence for agonizing amounts of time.  However, after a full viewing, I'm sure those pregnant pauses are far more important and justified on a second enjoyment. There are few movies that, after I see them, I look forward to seeing again as soon as possible; Drive is one of them though.  It's not a classic story of a criminal with a heart of gold.  It's a story of a criminal who tries to do the right thing after falling in love, but displays acts of violence that suggests an almost psychotic and homicidal maniac past.  Gosling does a stellar job showing that without ever saying a word.  But again, don't go into Drive with any pretense.  It's not Fast and the Furious filled with amazing car chase scenes!  It's not The Notebook filled with passionate love scenes.  It's brutal, weird and inspired!  It's one of those movies that makes you think you just saw something important...even if you're not 100% sure what you just saw. Drive  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: A
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , 

 

Jane Eyre

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
Here's a quiz that has nothing to do with how good or bad Jane Eyre is, the film based on the classic novel most of us had to read in school by Charlotte Bronte.  What's a worse movie watching experience?  A: Theater full of teenagers.  B:  Theater full of ethnic stereotypes (you know what I mean).  C:  Theater full of old people.  After seeing Jane Eyre I can confidently say that the answer is C.  My theater was packed with the geriatric and if they weren't loudly snorting in through their nose every 15 seconds or trying to gnaw down their buttered popcorn, then they were loudly explaining the movie to each other.  But I will try not to allow that to ruin my opinion of the film...I just had to vent. Like all movies that are based on a book, you have to prepare yourself for a lean and trimmed representation of what the pages contained.  Unfortunately for director Cary Fukunaga (Sin Nombre), Jane Eyre is a really long book.  What they chose to chop was selective and calculated but it was also somewhat vital to character development.  If you never read the book and expect the movie to make you love Jane as much as the readers do, you will be disappointed.  But this should make English teachers happy who will easily be able to catch whether or not a student read the book or saw the movie...be warned! The film has a great dreary look to it and I know it's easy to chalk up the overcast sky and pall of gloom as...well...England, but it actually fits the mood of the story very well.  Of course after sitting through two hours of that kind of atmosphere, it doesn't make you feel romantic at all and instead makes you want to jump off a cliff. The performances from star Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are Alright) and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds, 300) are very good, especially from her.  She displays the reserved joy and masked misery that Jane should, although the years of torment that leads to her stoic persona are cut from the film. The problem with this adaptation is where they decided to take it.  I never took Jane Eyre, the book, as a sweeping period romance but instead a gothic mystery that had romance in it.  Nevertheless, a sweeping period romance is, indeed, where it ended up.  I won't give anything away but scenes of spooky noises and terrifying night visions could have made the film much more entertaining to a broader audience, but instead they were cast aside to cater to middle-aged women seeking 19th century romance. This isn't me just hating on the movie because it's simply not the book.  I try to separate my feelings on the two.  If you never read the book you will probably enjoy the film at a "take-it-or-leave-it" level.  Dangerous though since if you did read the book, you will probably wish you did it again instead of see the film. Jane Eyre (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: B-
 (2) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , 

 

The Company Men

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
To say that The Company Men is a movie that doesn't have a blatant agenda and message behind it is the same thing as saying a Michael Moore movie is fair and balanced.  The drama with an all-star cast of Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper (American Beauty, The Muppets) and Kevin Costner is a clever disguise for a scathing expose on the downsizing of corporate America.  I know, that sounds dry and boring.  Why should we care about a bunch of overpaid, privileged white collar guys that get thrown out on their asses by a corporation while the CEO continues to swim in money?  Because everyone in America knows someone like this.  This movie pumps in the same veins as 2009's Up in the Air with George Clooney.  It holds a magnifying glass on a few characters to show what it's like to be laid off in your forties and fifties with a mortgage and family to support.  Sure it's not the life-or-death problems that they face in third world countries or the epic drama depicted in war films; but for our times, this is as bad as it can get for some.  It's the middle class nightmare that weighs on all of our minds.  But no matter how important and real the plot for The Company Men is, the emotion that comes out of it is just scratching the surface.  A cast was put together for this that has enough Oscar and Oscar nominations between them to choke a donkey, but director/writer John Wells (E.R., The West Wing) failed to get an Oscar-worthy performance out of any of them.  The film felt clunky at times and was in need of a good oiling.  That's an issue with a movie that features lots of characters with lots of story arcs that intersect.  It's hard to keep them all straight and it's even harder to go into enough depth for each one to make us care.  The closest we get to attachment is with Affleck's family man character who struggles putting his ego aside when he has trouble landing another white collar job and may have to take a blue collar one from his brother-in-law, who's played by Costner.  Although it's hard to feel like you're walking through this mid-life disaster with these people that still doesn't make it boring.  The movie moves very well and draws you in just enough.  It could be that it's something most of us can relate to on one level or another that makes it, at the very least, a good film.  Tommy Lee Jones plays his usual melancholy character that feels empathy for those around him and does a good job of showing it through his droopy eyes and limited but pertinent lines.  The Company Men rises above most so far this year and stands among one of the better dramas of 2011 but failed to meet my expectations.  The film might have been improved, ironically since it's about downsizing, by eliminating a few of the characters and focused on the ones that remained more; concentrating the drama and not spreading it out.  But I guess that would be against what the film stands for, huh? The Company Men (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , 

 

Blue Valentine

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
Oo!  It's the dreaded (almost) NC-17 rated movie with Ryan Gosling (The Notebook, Lars and the Real Girl) and Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain, Shutter Island) that everyone talked about before it came out because of its graphic sex scenes.  Yes, this movie does have sex scenes that flirt with graphic and they're very uncomfortable to watch, but if that's all you talk about from this movie, it's a damn shame.  Blue Valentine follows a married couple from the time of them meeting and falling in love to the time of their marriage falling apart.  That story couldn't possibly have been told more often, right?  But what makes this one unique is how the stories overlap each other and are downright painful to watch.  In fact, pain is what this movie is all about.  I myself come from a broken home.  My parents got divorced when I was 13 and anyone who has ever lived through a divorce, either as a child or spouse or both, will have a really hard time watching this.  Some of the scenes are so realistic and so flawlessly portrayed that it made me cautious to keep watching.  What's so impressive about these scenes though is the control over them.  It would be easy to do a movie about a failing marriage that's full of black and white characters that just scream the whole time.  Blue Valentine doesn't allow that to exist while it's under the careful command of director Derek Cianfrance, who mostly has a background in documentaries.  That's obvious as you watch it because the whole film has handheld camera work and heavily improvised dialogue.  In fact one scene that takes place on the Brooklyn Bridge was improvised so much that Gosling scared the crap out of the crew and Williams when he climbed over the edge of the bridge (where there was no safety net) and threatened to jump.  It's one of the many scenes that is so uneasy to watch that it makes you want to shut it off.  I'm not a big fan of Gosling or Williams, but they did a great job in this.  Williams actually is the better of the two.  Gosling's character doesn't change through the film since he's a husband that doesn't want to lose his family.  Williams had to pull off someone who falls in love and falls out of it while filming and she does it with finesse.  I felt that she loved and hated, both with passion, multiple times in the non-linear story.  What prevents this film from breaking into the realm of greatness is mostly what makes it so good: the pain.  Blue Valentine is a miserable movie and loves every second of it.  It never once tries to be uplifting or beautiful or charming.  It's not romantic.  It's not sweet.  It's a movie about a crumbling marriage where you feel every sting of heartbreak.  But why would anyone want to watch that...especially more than once?  I don't at least. Blue Valentine  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B+
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , 

 

The Fighter

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
I hope that Christian Bale is already practicing his acceptance speech for winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.  Besides the fact that the infamous method actor sculpted himself into a 120 lbs crackhead for the movie (he's done that AND WORSE for movies before though), he also blends a perfect mix of sympathy, comedy and suffering into arguably the best performance of his career.  He plays Dicky Eklund, the brother of famous boxer "Irish" Mickey Ward, who's played by Mark Wahlberg.  Besides also being joined by the beautiful and extremely talented Amy Adams, you won't recognize another actor in this movie directed by David O. Russell (Three Kings, I Heart Huckabees).  This is his finest work as well.  Be warned, the film is very misleading.  You know it's about a boxer and the film is called The Fighter, but it's not the cliche sports movie you've seen over and over again.  I would say this might be the best Boxing movie since Rocky and, in some aspects, might even give it a run for its money.  Yes, the Boxing parts of the movie feel like they could be interchangeable with any other Boxing movie to ever come out (although Russell really impressed me by switching his camera to a digital one for the fights to give it more of a Pay-Per-View look) however Boxing has very little to do with the movie.  This really is a movie about a family dealing with addiction.  Bale's character is addicted to crack.  Wahlberg's character is addicted to his brother.  And Alice the mother, who is played amazingly by Melissa Leo (Frozen River, Conviction) is addicted to the fame.  Everyone in this, with the exception of Wahlberg, deserves a nomination.  It drips with talent.  And hats off to Russell for also casting many locals in key parts that make you shake your head wondering "where the hell did they find these people?"  Well, they found them in Lowell, Mass, where it all took place.  Russell even allowed Mickey's trainer, Mickey O'Keefe, play himself in the film.  Everything feels more like a documentary with it's shining authenticity and handheld camera work.  It's true that the movie reminds you of something you've seen before.  It has the archetype of almost every sports film but it also has the archetype for every poor family struggling with drug addiction.  But rarely are those stories told together with so much talent and attention to detail put into it.  If you're looking for a sports movie, you'll get one eventually but you have to wait a while for it.  If you're looking for a family drama, you'll get one right away but you'll have to appreciate the Boxing too.  My wife had zero interest in seeing this with me but went just to make me happy.  By the end of the film, we were both sitting in the darkened theater with tears in our eyes and a desire to see it again.  In fact she liked it more than I did.  The Fighter won't win Best Picture because there are too many other movies that are just slightly better, but it deserves to be considered one of the Top 10 films of the year without a doubt...and doesn't have to fight to get there. The Fighter  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: A+
 (2) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , 

 

Hereafter

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
What do you hope to do when you're 80-years-old?  I think most of us would be happy just being alive.  Oscar-winning Director Clint Eastwood is 80 and seems to be getting younger and younger with each new movie he does.  I was never really a big fan of Eastwood as an actor.  Dirty Harry movies never did much for me.  As a director, however, he's given us some of the best films of the last decade.  I thought Million Dollar Baby and Flags of Our Fathers were incredible and powerful.  But (and I know many disagree with me) he also gave us complete duds like Gran Torino and Invictus.  Hereafter is his first dive into the paranormal but it's not scary at all.  This could be a sequel to The Sixth Sense and Matt Damon is the little kid all grown up.  He's the reluctant psychic that can commune with the dead.  He has a gift but doesn't want to use it because it's too hurtful to his life.  Sounds like a pretty cliched story, right?  Well, what Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon, The Queen) tried to do to make it fresh is have two other stories that are totally unrelated to Damon's and have them crisscross a la Traffic or Babel.  The other two stories involve a French journalist played by Cecile de France and a young British boy played by Frankie McLaren.  Either of these stories would be interesting on their own but are told in such a boring, plodding way.  The story of the French woman starts the movie and it's utterly amazing and enthralling.  It takes place during the 2004 tsunami in Thailand.  It's so incredible in the way it was filmed and really does a great job of showing how horrible that event was.  The British boy's story also involves a true story and it is the terrorist bombing of the London subway in 2005.  However, whenever Eastwood does a movie that features a child actor to carry a major role, it's a safe bet that it will be cast horribly.  The reason why Gran Torino was so bad was because the two child actors he cast were unwatchable.  McLaren isn't much better.  I get the impression that he was cast because he was a twin and has the most pathetic, dopey look on his face that screams tragedy without saying a word.  And if he was playing a mute in the film, that would be just fine, but he's not.  I know it's cruel to single out a kid as the weakest link in a painfully average movie so I'll emphasis that it's not just him.  The whole film lacked any kind of energy or pulse.  I wish Matt Damon's psychic character could commune with this dead film to find out how to make it better.  Even the moments that made me tear up only achieved half of the potential the story offered.  The good news though is that doing these movies seems to keep Eastwood alive and well and we can keep hoping for another Million Dollar Baby. Hereafter (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: C
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , 

 

I'm Still Here

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
By this time, anyone who has any interest in pop culture...even the vaguest amount...knows that Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Signs) lost his mind about a year and a half ago.  He grew a hobo beard and dredded-up his hair in strands of neglect and filth.  He walked away from his Oscar-nominated career as an A-list actor to go after a ridiculous goal of being a rapper.  People watched him crash and burn on the David Letterman Show and on the pages of gossip rags.  Well, it turned out that it was all for this film, which was directed by his brother-in-law Casey Affleck (The Killer Inside Me, Gone Baby Gone).  When I'm Still Here (which is named after one of Phoenix's more promising songs) first came out, people still believed that it was a documentary about his descent into madness.  In the weeks that followed the movie's slow and limited release, the two actors went on a press tour admitting that it was all a hoax.  This made what would've been a really scary, sad but above all, weird documentary about lunacy into a regular movie that was just plain weird.  It's one of the most complicated movies I've ever seen.  I don't understand why they made it.  It's essentially one of the biggest gambles with a person's career I've ever seen in Hollywood.  It's not a comedy either.  Don't go into this thinking you're gonna see something like Borat or Bruno.  This is a fake documentary that's more on the side of drama, but it's drama you don't care about.  Not to mention the fact that it's VERY adult.  Besides seeing Phoenix do blow, pills and smoke weed (all of which he swears were fake), you see him get oral sex from a hooker, full-frontal male nudity and someone take a dump on his face.  None of which is done to be funny, not that it really would be anyway.  There are some scenes that are uncomfortably awesome though.  After chasing him all around the country for a sit-down, Phoenix eventually meets with Puff Daddy to discuss producing his album.  After listening to dismal cuts from it, the situation turns palpable with tension as Phoenix assumes the sale of working together and Diddy tries to let him down without hurting his feelings.  Another positive trait of the film is that it's one of the most interesting character studies ever.  Again, that doesn't make it good though.  The fact that he kept a character going for 18 months during every waking hour is really impressive.  In fact it's so impressive that he might be a long shot for a Best Actor nomination.  But the movie as a whole is like wearing a shirt that's too small; the film feels uncomfortable and awkward and doesn't make glad you're going through it.  If you're really into art films that make you think "what does this mean?" more than movies that you can just sit back and enjoy, you'll probably enjoy this more than I will. I'm Still Here (Rated R) Gavin Grade: C
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , 

 

The Social Network

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
This sounded like the worst movie EVER!  Am I right?!  Was anyone actually excited about a movie about freaking Facebook?!  How shocking could it be?  The dude gets unfriended in the end?  Boy, could I have not been more wrong though.  Who knew that the history of Facebook is so interesting?  Mark Zuckerberg did, for one.  He's the teenage genius that created the social network and is played very well by Jessie Eisenberg (Zombieland, Adventureland).  This was exactly what he needed to get out from the shadow of Michael Cera and prove that he's not just a cheaper version of him but instead a serious actor that should be given his deserved attention.  Another actor in this film that demands attention is *gulp, sigh* Justin Timberlake, and yes I mean THAT Justin Timberlake.  Apparently, when he's not bringing sexy back, he's taking acting classes because he's great in this as the creator of Napster, Sean Parker, who becomes a perfect villain for this tale.  But still, why is this interesting to anyone?  Well, apparently there were two lawsuits filed against Zuckerberg and Facebook at the same time and out of those lawsuits came three very different stories of what actually happened, who did what and when.  Getting more interesting, right?  Now throw in the combination of two guys at the top of their craft to tell the story and you've got yourself a dream team.  Director David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) is one of the best directors out there now and Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, A Few Good Men) is not only one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood but also has his own frenzied pace of dialogue that never gets old or dusty.  These guys put together such an amazing vehicle for which this story is allowed to rocket along at a two-hour runtime that seems to be 45 minutes, that it may be some of their best work...it definitely is for Sorkin.  To top it all off, the score for the film is done by former Nine Inch Nails genius, Trent Reznor, who Fincher worked with before on Seven.  He's made such a haunting and playful electronica musical score for this that the phrase "Oscar-winner Trent Reznor" seems like it should have always been how we referred to him.  In fact, there's no reason why everyone I've mentioned above should be nominated for an Oscar for this film.  On top of that, I'd say that The Social Network is the film to beat for Best Picture this year.  Not too shabby for what started off as the most boring-sounding movie I ever heard.  But really what it is is a version of Goodfellas for the 21st Century.  It's a gang that no longer gets back at people by shoving an ice pick into the back of their heads but taking them to court for hundreds of millions of dollars.  They don't rule the streets with an iron fist but rule cyberspace with geeky pompousness.  No one in the movie is 100% bad and no one is 100% good.  Zuckerberg is portrayed as someone who wages a war on privilege, apathy and wealth by creating something that all the ivy league sons of millionaires couldn't do...an original idea that only he could make.  But once he makes the monster in his lab, it breaks out and runs amuck on the citizens of the town below.  The question is will anyone want to actually pay to see a story about this nerd and his quest for respect?  Well, if Facebook was a country, it would be the third most populated country on Earth.  So, yeah, I'd imagine some people have interest in it. The Social Network (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: A+
 (2) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , , , , 

 

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:20PM
Well, this might be one of the cheesiest titles for a sequel ever.  I literally rolled my eyes when I saw that title come up at the end of the great trailer for this a few months ago.  The good news is that it's a lot better than its namesake.  This is a sequel to the 1987 Wall Street by Oliver Stone.  The original is a classic film that properly captured what was going on in the '80s in the upper crust of society.  It also gave us the villain, Gordon Gekko, that was played by Michael Douglas and remains his best performance to date (possibly only rivaled by his performance in Falling Down).  The movie won him an Oscar and was nominated for several others.  However, it's been 23 years since it shined a spotlight on the moral short-selling of America by the Wall Street elite.  Which made me think, "Did this really NEED a sequel?"  The answer to that is actually "yes" and "no."   Yes because writer/director Oliver Stone (JFK, Any Given Sunday) felt that in the years since the first one that our financial system has actually become the super villain it never was when he thought it was bad in '87.  He's right too and why he didn't need Gekko to be the bad guy in this since the system itself takes his place.  But don't worry, the movie doesn't get too political although Gekko gets out of jail on the eve of 9/11 as creepy iconic foreshadowing, and the film takes place over the time period that straddles the Bush and Obama administrations, when the economy was at its worst and bailouts were being handed out like coffee at an AA meeting.  It won't lose you in the politics but it will lose you in the maze of Capitalism.  It's over the heads of most of us but not to the point that it's no longer entertaining.  But it also didn't need a sequel because the two films can stand alone as their own separate movies.  You don't need to see the first one to enjoy the second one, but it certainly helps in the enjoyment.  (My friend Kirk didn't see the first one all the way through and still loved it.)  Douglas is fantastic as Gordon again although he's not as devilish and this time he's joined by Shia LaBouf, Carey Mulligan (An Education, Public Enemies) and James Brolin (No Country for Old Men, W).  The cast is strong and very impressive in their performances.  Oliver Stone appears to try to go back to his roots with the more stylized directing that we grew to respect him for.  The problem with the film is that it seems to have gone through too many focus groups.  There appear to be two endings; the first one is great and ends the way I would've wanted it too and the second ends the way a Hollywood studio would prefer...sh*tty.  Was the ending enough to ruin the film for me?  Not at all but it did lower it's stock market share price. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps  (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: B
 (3) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , 
People : Charlie Sheen

 

Crazy Heart

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Last year, Mickey Rourke played a rundown, old profession wrestler that was past his prime, his own worst enemy and a tragic anti-hero in The Wrestler.  The role won him several awards and put life back into his dead career.  In Crazy Heart, Jeff Bridges plays a rundown, old professional country singer that is past his prime, his own worst enemy and a tragic anti-hero.  So far Bridges has won several awards for this as well, including the Golden Globe.  If you think these movies sound VERY similar it's because they are.  They are the same type of story, directed the same type of way and written with the same gritty dialogue...and damnit, it's still effective as hell.  Crazy Heart did to me what The Wrestler did and that was make me care about a subject I don't care about.  I have zero interest in Country Music.  I don't like it.  It doesn't like me.  But Bridges' character, who is a near 60-year-old chain smoking alcoholic named Bad Blake, is a world away from Rourke's Randy the Ram wrestler.  Bad Blake is a likable, charismatic guy who made some bad choices in his life but none of them make you, as a viewer, angry.  He's the kind of guy that you'd want to buy a drink and listen to his stories, even after he broke your heart.  Jeff Bridges plays this part beautifully and so subtly, you'd think it was based on someone he knew.  I've always been a fan of his and I'm glad he's finally getting the credit he deserves as an actor.  (I still think he got slighted for playing The Dude in the greatest comedy of all time The Big Lebowski.)  The craft that comes out on the screen is hypnotic and wonderful no matter what Bridges is doing, even when he's throwing up in a toilet or fingering Maggie Gyllenhaal...not sure which is more disturbing actually.  Every mumbled syllable that comes out of his mouth is like a mystic cliffhanger; you're not sure if you should laugh, cry or just listen in case some old timey country wisdom plops out.  (I even found myself enjoying the music he sings all himself too.)  I'm not sure how much of that is Bridges or the script, which was written by the first-time-director, Scott Cooper.  I get the impression that a lot of what made it on the screen was improvised, but I'm really not sure.  Cooper's direction isn't bad.  He does what he could with the limited budget the film had.  He captures the infinite desert sky with the same beauty that Ang Lee did in Brokeback Mountain.  However he also does a poor job of making me believe certain scenes are of concerts in front of 12,000 people.  I know he didn't have the budget for it but geez man, it looks pretty amateurish to just fill a few rows and then hope we can't see past bright lights in our eyes.  It really doesn't matter though.  The movie isn't about that, or the script, or even the other actors in it.  Sure Gyllenhaal, Robert Duval and an uncredited Colin Farrel (wowing with a fake Southern accent) are great and fun to watch, but it's all about Bridges.  He's the star, the reason to watch and the reason he'll hopefully win the Oscar...finally. Crazy Heart  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: A-
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , , 

 

Extraordinary Measures

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
If you've watched anything on CBS for the past three months then you've probably seen ads for this movie from CBS Films starring Brendan Fraiser and Harrison Ford.  The trailer for Extraordinary Measures is one of the worst I've ever seen.  They revealed too much and made it look like a slightly flashier made-for-TV movie or a special episode of ER.  This movie, which suffers from the worst title, poster and marketing of the last few years, was actually better than I thought it would be.  The story is about a family man, played by Fraiser, teaming up with a doctor, played by Ford, to find a cure for the disease that is killing Fraiser's two children.  The movie prays on your emotions from the very beginning displaying the phrase "inspired by true events."  Right out of the gate they want you to be inspired by this story because it "really happened."  Sadly, "inspired by true events" is the Hollywood catchall which means that none of what you're seeing could be true.  Thankfully the best and most inspiring parts of this movie are true.  What's not true is the uncomfortable relationship the Harrison Ford character forms with Fraiser to find a cure.  That also means that the most boring parts of this movie aren't true.  So for the life of me I can't figure out why screenwriter Robert Nelson Jacobs (Chocolat, The Shipping News) made them so boring.  I can't really blame first time director, Tom Vaughn on this because his only experience prior was TV.  Perhaps the blame could be Harrison Ford's, who was also Executive Producer on this film.  There is so much time spent on the increasingly boring parts of the film, that it slowly sucks all the emotion from the rest.  Extraordinary Measures has the perfect makings to be a tear-jerking tissue-using sobfest.  It's not and I want you to know that I'm not someone who is afraid to cry at movies; in fact I love it.  I went to see this fully expecting it to sucker punch me into crying even when I didn't want too.  I would imagine that any parent who has ever had to go through a chronic problem with their child that put them in the hospital for extended periods of time wouldn't be able to handle this however. But for the rest of us, it's pretty easily done.  It's almost as if this they started to make this as a mad-for-TV film and then changed their mind but didn't change the script or director...just added some bigger actors.  The film isn't a letdown and it isn't impressive.  If Extraordinary Measures did anything extraordinary it was balancing on the line of mediocrity so well it never leans one way or the other. Extraordinary Measures  (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: C
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , 

 

The Lovely Bones

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
The book The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold sat on the New York Times Bestsellers List for over a year and sold over a million copies, so there's a good chance you might have read the book.  I did not.  I imagine that the book is filled with such amazing imagery that you don't want to put it down.  I've been told that it's a "page-turner" that's filled with excitement.  Sadly, the movie is primarily far from that.  The movie The Lovely Bones is directed by the very talented and Oscar winning Peter Jackson who gave us The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  The movie is about a girl guiding her family through pain and justice as she helps them find her killer from beyond the grave after she is murdered.  It stars Saoirse Ronan (Atonement), Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz and the amazing Stanley Tucci.  So if you're keeping score at home, you've got a very popular book that many people loved, an amazing director and a stellar cast; but if DaVinci Code/Angels & Demons taught us anything, it's that that doesn't guarantee anything.  There are scenes of this 135-minute-long movie that seem like 135 minutes themselves. "The In-Between," which is the not-quite-heaven world that Susie spends most of the movie in, moves at a pace that is shockingly slow.  Sure the FX are pretty and fun to watch, but that gets old really fast and eventually the scenes that are meant to be mysterious and emotional just turn into parts of the story that get in the way.  Nothing interesting happens in them and because the dialogue in those scenes is stilted and awkward, nothing interesting is said either.  It's a real shame that that occupies most of the movie since the premise of a serial killer living in suburban Pennsylvania (on a street that looks JUST like where I grew up) and a family dealing with the loss while searching for justice is REALLY compelling.  Stanley Tucci plays George Harvey who is said serial killer and it might be one of his greatest performances.  After watching him confess his love to Julia Child in Julie & Julia, it's shocking to watch him play the polar opposite of that.  He's nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in this and I think he may get an Oscar nomination for it too.  It's one of two things that keeps this movie interesting, the other being Peter Jackson's direction.  It's odd to watch anything that Jackson does that's not Lord of the Rings because he uses the same techniques in everything.  In The Lovely Bones he may have made one of the scariest scenes shot this year as we cling to every painful second of a serial killer seducing a 14-year-old girl before killing and raping her (it's not done graphically).  Tucci and Jackson crafted scenes like that one so well that you can actually feel your temperature and pulse rise with every syllable spoken.  Sadly, those moments aren't enough to carry the film which turns out to be too long, too clunky and too slow; and made me feel like it should've stayed on the pages and in the imaginations of the millions that read it.  What should've been budding with emotion, turned out to be budding with nothing. The Lovely Bones (Rated  PG-13) Gavin Grade: C+
 (1) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , , 

 

Precious

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
precious_poster-691x1023You can always tell who the people are who saw Precious as they leave the theater.  They’re the ones who are shuffling down the hallways, staring at their feet in a blank look that may or may not have a hint of suicidal thoughts behind it.  Yikes!  This movie is almost in the same realm as Requiem for a Dream or American History X in the way that it’s full contact cinema.  You don’t sit back and enjoy this movie; this movie sits back and kicks your ass.  But in this case, it doesn’t make it a great movie.  The story is about a 16-year-old girl named Precious who has one of the most horrible, abusive lives you can possibly think of.  Go ahead and think of something horrible you can do to a human being; chances are that happens to Precious.  The title role is played wonderfully by a young newcomer named Gabourey Sidibe.  Her vulnerability is admirable as she’s the opposite of every single leading actress in Hollywood, yet she carries herself with a confidence that most don’t.  There are also some shockingly great performances from Lenny Kravitz and Mariah Carey…yeah, THE Kravitz and Carey.  You probably won’t recognize them though–unless they’re pointed out to you–due to weight gain, lack of make up and a killer accent on Carey.  Sherry Shepard (30 Rock, The View) also shows up in a near disguise performance as well.  The real star of the film, however, is Mo’Nique…comedian Mo’Nique.  Never did I ever think that I would say the sentence “Mo’Nique should win an Oscar,” but here I am saying it.  She gives one of the best performances of the year, and possibly of the last decade, from a woman.  Her entire role is disturbing all the way up to the climax of the film where Mo’Nique treats us to one of the most heartbreaking and soul-wrenching monologues I’ve ever seen.  Mo’Nique, who is a victim of childhood sexual abuse herself, had to dig so deep for that scene I have the feeling that it was purely cathartic, making the tears from the other actors painfully real.  If Mo’Nique doesn’t win an Oscar for this performance there should be a public outcry over it.  I think another Oscar might go to director Lee Daniels (Monster’s Ball).  His approach to such a dark story is almost whimsical at times while keeping it gritty and painful.  He does let you off the hook with some of the more disturbing scenes by cutting away just in time…thankfully.  His directing choices remind me almost of Oliver Stone in the way he edits, zooms, goes to fantasy scenes and even uses colors.  But all this said, the movie isn’t great.  The performances are.  The directing is.  But not the movie.  I’m trying to find meaning in the story.  I get that it’s meant to be inspirational and that even when this girl was beaten down as far as she was, she still picked herself up to move forward.  But does that work on me?  It’s interesting that the theater was packed when I saw it and it was all by white people.  African Americans are not flocking to see Precious.  Instead, it’s being seen by the white, suburban, Art House crowd, like me, and it’s not filling me with inspiration.  In fact, all it did was make me feel sorry for people like Precious, and I don’t think that’s the movie’s intention.  I can gain some inspiration from the drive to keep moving forward no matter what; but it still comes from a place of pity because I can’t identify with any of her problems.  Because of that, I think this is becoming a movie that everyone thinks they HAVE to like, while losing sight of the fact that some films can offer you great elements without a win overall. Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B+
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , , , 

 

The Road

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
the_road_poster02Novelist Cormac McCarthy seems to be a discovered treasure lately.  The 76-year-old wrote the novel that 2007 Best Picture winner “No Country for Old Men” was based on and he has three more of his novels being turned into movies in the next two years.  He also wrote the novel “The Road” and if I were a betting man, I’d say he’s got a good shot at having another one of his babies win Best Picture again.  ”The Road” stars Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Robert Duval, Guy Pierce and a brand new 14-year-old Australian boy named Kodi Smit-McPhee.  This cast gives every inch of themselves to this story of survival in a post-Apocalyptic world.  But don’t be fooled.  This isn’t “2012″ or some other special effect extravaganza where the every-day guy does amazingly heroic things while falling in love again with an old flame.  This is bleak, dark, depressing and beautiful.  In fact most of the movie has no special effects at all.  Director John Hillcoat did a great job of choosing already desolate locations to film so that elaborate FX weren’t needed to distract you from the story.  Why did the world end?  How did it end?  When did it end?  These are all questions that aren’t answered and don’t need to be answered.  In fact, we don’t even know character’s names.  Mortensen and Smit-McPhee are simply credited as “The Dad” and “The Boy.”  That’s all you need to know because at the core of this movie is a simple struggle of a father and son surviving in an unfriendly, hostile world, all while being completely relatable to the perils, triumphs and heartbreak that live in the seasons of life.  The Academy should really pay attention to this movie.  I’m not a fan of children or actors that are in the movie for 5-10 minutes winning Oscars, but this may have to be an exception since Smit-McPhee and Duval give us performances that are gut wrenchingly sad.  The tone of the movie is reflected perfectly by Hillcoat’s directing.  The movie wasn’t shot in Black & White, but it might as well have been since it’s depleted of colors except for some choice flashbacks.  The flashbacks, by the way, are the only change from the novel, to which it stays very faithful.  The violence in the book is done tastefully and modestly in the film, although sometimes what’s not seen is far more grotesque and disturbing than what is seen.  (Not hard to figure out how some people are surviving)  It might get a little slow and plodding for some viewers that have a shorter attention span but sticking this movie out till the end is not just what you need to do for closure to this hopeless story, but it’s almost a gift to anyone who’s ever had to go through life, that’s symbolized here as “The Road.” The Road (Rated R) Gavin Grade: A+
 (0) Comments
Tags :  
Social : , , , , , , , 

 

Frost/Nixon

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Frost/Nixon  (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B Oscar Watch!  This one's up for Best Picture and when that news got out, the studio re-released this.  That means it was out of theaters in Sacramento, but now it's back and playing a couple places. Make sure you don't go see this movie tired; it's definetly a "Talkie."  It's not the most exciting movie in the world, there aren't twists and turns that keep you interested either.  The only thing that makes this movie what it is, is the story and the performances.  Makes sense too considering that it's based on a play.  The story is about how a British talk-show host, David Frost, bet everything on getting an interview with former disgraced President, Richard Nixon.  What Frost tried to do was get Nixon to own up to his mistakes and apologize to America for his wrong-doings.  A story that echoes the sentiments of how many Americans feel about George W. Bush eerily too well.  The movie is carried by the two main actors.  Michael Sheen plays Frost and Frank Langella plays Nixon.  If there is anyone in this year's Oscar race that can give Mickey Rourke a run for the money and SHOULD win over him, it's Frank Langella.  Sadly the last thing I remember him from playing Skeletor in "Masters of the Universe."  But Langella is so good in this movie that it's like watching moving art.  He has lengthy monologues that make you think that you ARE watching Richard Nixon spout his sadness and insecurities.  What's just as good as Langella's performance is the partnership between director, Ron Howard, and writer, Peter Morgan (who also wrote the play).  They actually show Nixon as a smart, crafty, selfish and unstable man, but make you feel so bad and sympathetic for him that you may be like me, and have a few tears by the end.  However, the biggest tragedy with this movie is that Langella will lose Best Actor to Mickey Rourke.
 (3) Comments

 

The Wrestler

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
The Wrestler (Rated R) Gavin Grade: B+ Oscar Watch!  Eh, who are we kidding; Mickey Rourke has this one in the bag.  Everyone is calling this his big comeback to acting, but I thought he had that when he starred in "Sin City" a few years ago.  Of course instead of shooting comic book bad guys, this time he's a professional wrestler who's down on his luck.  The whole story personifies Rourke's own career which is why director, Darren Aronofsky, said he would only do this movie with him.  Aronofsky is the director of "Requiem for a Dream," which is one of my favorite movies.  His approach to "The Wrestler" was totally different though.  He used handheld camerawork through the whole movie and made it feel almost like a documentary.  If you get motion sickness, you might want to sit this one out.  You may also want to sit this one out if you have a weak stomach, considering one scene is gut-wrenching as we see a brutal wrestling match that involves barbed wire, staple guns and razor wire.  The one thing that I loved about this movie was that it's the first movie in a long time that really was about an anti-hero.  At no point during this movie do I like Rourke's character of Randy "The Ram" Robinson.  I feel bad for him, but he's his own worst enemy.  The only people in his empty life are his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood) and a stripper (Marisa Tomei), who is just as lost as him.  Those two crank out performances that are just as noteworthy as Rourke's.  In the end, the movie stands up as a really impressive character-driven story.  However, the film is like "The Ram," it might be its own worst enemy in the respect that the world of Pro Wrestling might be too much for some moviegoers to take, and the main character is so unlikable that you're not hoping he succeeds.
 (0) Comments

 

Gran Torino

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Gran Torino (Rated R) Gavin Grade: C Oscar Watch!  Clint Eastwood was never one of my favorite actors.  I always thought that a bulk of his work was cliche and hokie.  However in recent years, he's really impressed me as a filmmaker.  His performance in this movie doesn't really do much to change my opinion of him being a walking stereotype since he plays an old, grumpy, racist Korean War Vet.  He even goes as far as yelling "get off my lawn!" at some gang members.  But what makes this movie decent is the story.  Classic tale of meeting friends in unlikely places?  Yeah.  But it's a little different in its approach.  Eastwood is a widower that lives in the same house in a crap neighborhood that has economically and demographically changed.  Living next door are Hmongs.  When one of them tries to steal his Gran Tornio (which is a classic, bad-ass car) fate intervenes and he makes unlikely friends.  That's where the movie goes from good to average, even verging on bad at times.  I don't know who did the casting in this movie, but Ahney Vor and Bee Vang, who play the syblings living next door, are some of the worst actors to ever be in a major motion picture.  Good God!  If you are cast in a movie directed, produced and staring Clint Eastwood and you're the LEADS...take some acting classes.  These two are so piss poor that it detached me from their characters and made me wanting the end of the movie to come sooner than the quality of story should allow.  It's ashame because the best scene in the whole movie is the one where Eastwood is alone.  It's a shame when you consider how well he conducted "Million Dollar Baby," and its sensitive story.  Better luck next time, Clint.
 (1) Comments

 

Revolutionary Road

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
nullRevolutionary Road (Rated R) Gavin Grade: C Oscar Watch!  Awe!  It's the re-teaming of a dream couple that everyone in the world loves...except for me.  Yes, it's the first time that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio did a movie together again since "Titanic."  Don't make me gag.  But my lack of compassion for something like that is not the reason why I didn't like this movie.  I didn't care for it because I didn't know what the movie was trying to say.  It's from director Sam Mendes, who did the great movie "American Beauty."  Just like that movie, this is also about the not-so-perfect lives of suburban couples and the destruction of dreams by the toils of life, but this time it's set in 1955.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people that needs a movie spelled out for him.  I like it when movies leave you walking away with whatever message you wanted to get from it, but this left me with nothing.  I didn't get what the story was trying to convey.  Was I suppose to feel bad for one of them, both of them or none of them?  I certainly did feel bad for the men in the movie, since they all suffer from Premature Ejaculation (both sex scenes begin and end in less than a minute.)  However both of them did the best they could with the script.  In fact both were really impressive to watch and Winslet got herself a Golden Globe win for it.  In supporting acting roles are Kathy Bates and the ever-impressive Michael Shannon, who plays her insane son.  He's only in two scenes, but may steal the movie with them.  Mendes' attention to detail - from the props, to costumes, to the sets, is impressive too.  The problem with this film lands square on the shoulders of a confused story that leaves the audience feeling the same way.  Maybe the book was better.
 (0) Comments

 

Doubt

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Doubt (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: A Oscar Watch!  I didn't love this movie just because I love the play, but that was a HUGE reason why.  As a film, the movie stands up as quality cinema; shocking considered that it was directed by John Patrick Shanley.  He's the guy who wrote the play but was more famous for directing the opus "Joe Versus The Volcano!"  Who knew that guy could be so deep!?  The movie stars Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams (who is WAY too cute to play a nun.)  These three deliver a 1-2-3 combination of amazing acting.  The story is a metaphore for Good vs. Evil set in a Catholic School in New York City when a nun, played by Streep, suspects the Priest, played by Hoffman, of molesting a young boy.  The question for you as an audience member is, which one is "Good" and which one is "Evil?"  Representing the audience is another nun, played by Adams, who gets caught up in the middle.  The Golden Globes passed on all three of these actors for awards, but I have a feeling that we'll see The Oscars reward at least one of them.  They're all SO good that they can't be ignored.  Not only was the acting amazing, but the story is amazing!  I'm a big fan of stories that can be taken any way that you want them to go.  Just like how "Hamlet" is considered the greatest play of all time, just because the role of Hamlet can be portrayed in any way possible - it's up to the actor.  "Doubt" is exactly like this.  Fascinating to watch play out and even better to try and figure out the truth.  Also watch for a 10-minute-long performance from Viola Davis, who plays the reserved, loving and tormented mother of the boy in question.  It may be the best 10 minutes of the movie!
 (0) Comments

 

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Rated PG-13) Gavin Grade: C+ Oscar Watch!  This film is based on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story that I read somewhere in my high school years.  I remember the book being short, easy to read and actually...funny.  The movie is far from that.  It's long and not very funny at all.  At a running time of almost 3 hours, it's hard to say if there's anything that could be cut; probably not.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't feel long.  It's weird too while watching it because it's a mix of "Forrest Gump" and "Big Fish" but it failed to capture the magic that both had.  I was actually hoping that it would be that "great" movie that Brad Pitt gets remembered for, just like Tom Hanks will forever be remembered for Forrest Gump.  Sadly, I don't think this will be it.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE Brad Pitt fan.  But sadly, I was let down by his performance in this.  I thought that he tried so hard in being a complacent, mild-mannered character that his mild-manneredness got in the way him portraying any sort of drama.  Maybe I had too high of hopes for this movie.  David Fincher is one of my favorite directors.  I think he's guided Pitt to amazing performances in "Se7en" and "Fight Club."  But him trying to guide him in a drama, just didn't translate; or maybe it was just this drama.  Cate Blanchet gives a stunning performance, as usual.  But watching her age in the movie is almost just as facinating as watching him.  Not because of special effects or make up, but because of her nuances and detail to character.  It sounds like I'm beating up on this movie, but don't let that give you the wrong impression.  After seeing this movie, I told my family that I thought it was "good, not great."  "GOOD, not great."  It's still a GOOD movie...just not as good as it could've been.
 (2) Comments

 

Milk

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Milk (Rated R) Gavin Grade: A- Oscar Watch!  Sean Penn has already been nominated for Best Actor by The Golden Globes for his portrayal of Harvey Milk.  Who's Harvey Milk and why make a movie about him?  Well, he was the first openly gay man elected into office in America.  While he was in office, he worked hard to make sure that gay rights were brought to the front lines of America and shot down California Propositions that were cased in hate and bigortry.  Sounds like 2008, right?  Well this was 30 years ago and because of that, this movie rings so relevant.  Besides the timely subject matter that might make you think twice about how you vote on gay issues, the performances are what drives this movie to its level of greatness.  Sean Penn is just the beginning.  His first boyfriend is James Franco, who also picked up a Golden Glob nomination...but for "Pinneapple Express."  (Huh?)  There's also Josh Brolin who stuns as another conflicted character with his subtle character ticks.  And rounding it out is Emile Hersch who Penn directed last year in the amazing "Into the Wild."  So far it sounds like a perfect movie, but it's not.  Somewhere near the beginning of the third act, the movie gets plotting.  It starts feeling slow, dragging and bogged down.  Almost as if the plot is just treading water for the sake of staying longer, resulting in the just-over-two-hour-long movie feeling closer to two and a half.  But the dragging doesn't last too long and the movie is not only a quality movie but it's an important movie; it's just so good when those two things sync up together.
 (0) Comments

 

Rachel Getting Married

by Gavin , posted Nov 2 2011 7:19PM
Rachel Getting Married  (Rated R) Gavin Grade:  C+ Oscar Alert!  If I were a betting man, I'd say this movie will appear as an Oscar nomination for Best Actress.  Anne Hathaway is the only recognizable name in this movie about a 20-something sister named Kim, coming home from a drug rehab to attend her sister's wedding.  Oh yeah, her sister's name is Rachel.  It's directed by Jonathan Demme, who gave us such amazing movies as "Philadelphia" and "Silence of the Lambs."  I saw this movie expecting it to be a powerhouse performance piece based on the recommendation of my best friend, Joe.  What I got instead was a movie split in two.  The first half sets up a promising story and intriguing characters as they prepare for this wedding.  We can see drama building as devastating family secrets are piled on top of each other.  But then the second half just becomes a mess.  Details are forgotten and never resolved and we get so bogged down in aspects of the wedding that it becomes almost laughable.  However Demme does an utterly amazing job at making you feel like you're part of this wedding.  It's all shot with hand-held cameras, which makes you feel like you're watching a home movie or even sitting with the guests at the wedding.  Hathaway shows a very vulnerable side and stuns in some scenes as a tragic, pain-in-the-ass, headcase of a woman.
 (0) Comments

 


advertise with us
Recent Blog Posts
Jason Can't Swallow Pills
The Wake Up Call
May 22
Anthem Butchered at Hockey Game
The Wake Up Call
May 21
Oklahoma Tornados
The Wake Up Call
May 21
Star Trek: Into Darkness
Gavin
May 17
Another Kanye Rant
The Wake Up Call
May 17
Seeing Something Shocking
The Wake Up Call
May 15
Congratulating Cancelled Show
The Wake Up Call
May 14
The Great Gatsby
Gavin
May 11
Categories
Archives